Telangana High Court
B , Nalla Preethi vs Nishath Afza on 2 May, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1558 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - appellant
aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.1908 of 2018 in the
un-registered Appeal Suit by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal.
2 Heard Sri C.N.Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Smt.K.Preethi, learned counsel representing Smt.N.Kamala, learned counsel for
the respondent on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed
I.A.No.1908 of 2018 under Order XLI Rule 3-A of CPC read with Section 5 of
Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 278 days in preferring the appeal
suit. The petitioner stated in her affidavit filed along with the petition that she
gave birth to a female baby on 08.08.2018 at Lavanya Hospital, Hanmakonda,
Warangal and for several months she was on bed rest due to severe Lumbago
lower backache with Sciatica and could not move from bed. Later on, the child
also developed severe pediatric ailments and was hospitalized several times, for
which reason, she could not contact her counsel for the past one year and that
when she contacted her counsel, she learned about the passing of the impugned
judgment and decree and was advised to file an appeal against the same, due to
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1558_2019
which the delay of 278 days occurred from 24.12.2017 to 27.09.2018. But the
learned Principal District Judge, Warangal dismissed the said I.A observing that
no document was filed in proof of her ill health.
3.1. Learned cousnel for the petitioner further submitted that he enclosed the
medical certificate and medical record of the petitioner along with this revision
petition and further contended that the dismissal of the condone delay
application would amount to rejecting the appeal without hearing, as such
prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.1908 of 2018 dated
11.12.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the
medical record of the petitioner was not filed along with the application in
I.A.No.1908 of 2018. The judgment in O.S.No.489 of 2010 was passed by the
learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal on contest on merits on
06.10.2017, but the petitioner gave birth to a baby girl on 08.08.2018, several
months later, as such no proper explanation was given by the petitioner for
condoning the delay. The learned Principal District Judge, Warangal on
considering all the aspects dismissed the application. There was no illegality in
the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal to set aside the same
and prayed to dismiss the CRP.
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1558_2019
5. Perused the record.
6. The record would disclose that the petitioner herein was the defendant in
O.S.No.489 of 2010. The respondent - plaintiff filed O.S.No.489 of 2010
seeking the relief of perpetual injunction and the said suit was disposed of on
merits on 06.10.2017 by the learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal decreeing the same with costs. Aggrieved by which, the defendant
preferred an appeal and as there was a delay of 278 days in filing the appeal,
filed an application under Order XLI Rule 3-A of CPC read with Section 5 of
Limitation Act, 1963.
7. An appeal was a statutory right of the parties. Condonation of delay is a
discretionary power held by the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in several
cases held that liberal approach should be adopted in interpreting "sufficient
cause" for condoning the delay and held that the interpretation should aim to
ensure justice by not allowing technical errors or procedural hurdles to prevent a
fair hearing of a case. Condonation of delay is an exception to the rule of
limitation which sets dead lines for legal actions. By interpreting the term
"sufficient cause" in a liberal manner, the Courts would accept a party's
explanation for the delay rather than strictly adhering to the time limits. When
the delay was caused by unforeseen circumstances, genuine errors or for
reasons, which do not reflect negligence or lack of due diligence, the Courts
would consider the sufficient cause presented by the party and weigh it against
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1558_2019
the potential harm to the opposite party. By giving a liberal interpretation, the
parties would get a fair opportunity to present their case. It allows the Courts in
promoting the pursuit of justice by hearing on merits of the case and prioritises
the pursuit of justice over rigid adherence to rules, when appropriate.
8. The petitioner stated in her affidavit filed along with the application in
I.A.No.1908 of 2018 that she was on bed rest for several months due to lower
backache with Sciatica and gave birth to a child on 08.08.2018 and subsequent
to the delivery also, the child developed severe pediatric ailments and was
hospitalized, for which reason, she could not contact her counsel during the
period from 24.12.2017 to 27.09.2018 Though the petitioner could not file the
medical certificate and her medical record before the trial court, she enclosed
the same along with this revision petition. The Civil Assistant Surgeon of
MGM Hospital, Warangal issued the medical certificate dated 20.09.2018
certifying that the petitioner was suffering with lower backache (Lumbago) with
Sciatica and advised her to take bed rest from 15.11.2017 to 20.09.2018. The
prescriptions filed by the petitioner also would disclose that the petitioner gave
birth to a female child on 08.08.2017. The petitioner mentioning the same as
08.08.2018 might be a typographical mistake.
9. Considering the reasons stated by the petitioner, which were supported by
the prescriptions and the medical certificate issued by the doctor, which would
show that the delay was not caused in filing the appeal due to lack of negligence
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1558_2019
or due diligence by the petitioner, but for the said reasons stated by her in her
affidavit, the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal ought to have allowed
the application by interpreting the word "sufficient cause" in a liberal manner.
As such, it is considered fit to allow the revision by setting aside the order of the
learned Principal District Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.1908 of 2018 in the un-
registered appeal suit dated 11.12.2018 on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the
respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order
dated 11.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.1908 of 2018 in the un-registered appeal suit
by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal on payment of costs of
Rs.2,000/- to the respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. The Office of the learned Principal District Judge,
Warangal shall register the appeal suit, if otherwise found to be in order.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 02nd May 2025
Nsk.
